Re:Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto
by showoraskme on Monday May 02, 2016 @05:16PM
(#11615706)
Exactly this. Plenty of motivation.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
That's silly, there was no play here. Nobody will believe Wright solely on Gavin's word in anything but the extreme short term, which has already passed (without a play, like Wright announcing he is Satoshi, owns half a billion in bitcoin and will sell it, thereby manipulating the price). What did Wright and Gavin gain from this? Yet Gavin lost a lot of credibility.
In short, I don't this this is likely.
I don't think Wright gained anything. Gavin, however, gained an enormous sum of money. If Wright paid him.
Re:Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto
by danielweber on Monday May 02, 2016 @05:32PM
(#11615848)
Assume incompetence (or normal human gullibility) over malice.
I do assume. But my point is I think most people would probably sacrifice their credibility for a lump sum, especially if they knew the person wasn't going to be able to convince the public.
Re:Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto
by saint_fiasco on Monday May 02, 2016 @06:02PM
(#11616068)
But why would Wright pay Gavin? What did he expect to gain?
The article goes a bit into detail - Wright is on the hook for a few million dollars of tax issues, and seems to urgently need a plausible (to a judge) legal source of extremely large amounts of bitcoin or face persecution (possibly criminal) for tax fraud.
Re:Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto
by disposeofnick9 on Monday May 02, 2016 @07:21PM
(#11616591)
Regardless of is/not, Wright says he did it to never do it again.